Have we adopted a clear policy of nonviolence? If so, where can I find it?

IMO, verbal violence needs to be covered.

@oswgwhe Please refrain from comments that are not germane to the topic.

It is a simple thing to start a new topic thread that addresses your particular concerns.

By keeping the comments directly relevant to the proposal it helps to keep that proposal focused and easily understandable.

Thank you for your consideration.

oh, did you mean this lovely verbal threat received on the ng-2014 list?

JUST TO BE CLEAR: ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO ALTER, CO-OPT, or MISREPRESENT THE OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT at this gathering WILL BE CORRECTED, PUT IN CHECK, & HELD ACCOUNTABLE ... LOUDLY.

EXPECT ME.

@oswgwhe I don't even have the breathe left to address your statements - so many LIES - there is just not enough time.
Some of us have work to do.

also Sea, what is your last name?

LIE: He blocked the Native Americans and ethnic sensitivity in 2012 and 2013 and he’s messing with William Underbaggage this year.
@larryswetman @brandiwilliams -2012

LIE: He’s trying to paralyse us by getting Delphine and Sally to have it that three people from three different Occupies are required before a proposal can be made.
@delphinebrody @sallyg

nobody gets anybody to do anything. this is Occupy - for the record, Sally, Delphine and Cal spent many many hours (guessing 100) to work on the Decision Making Process requested by the group in January, and re-requested when indeed right here on loomio folks were asking for a decision making process.

p.s.to me, that is a very good and wise proposal - how many GAs have all of you seen where one person co-opts the entire GA. Having 2,3 proposers gives more weight to the proposal and shows some serious thought and collaboration prior to proposing.

with our GAs. - who's being non-inclusive now.

Sorry to post something not germane to the topic, Jackrabbit. I cannot abide LIES.

Opinions are one thing - don't be stating things as facts.

and finally, what sort of cowardice is this:
Proof will be provided on the ground in Sacramento if he shows up.

You mean you and the cowardly group spouting this nonsense get to decide when and where and IF the rest of Occupy gets proof? of liable? bullshit!

I am officially demanding proof be provided IN WRITING or you cease and desist from further disruption of this group.

What the heck kind of paranoid psychopath email is this.? what is the about... Geez, this is sad shit and the epitome of why so many smart occupiers took what we have learned from the last few years experience and moved on to make things happen, I.e. Accomplishment is actual social change... Who wrote this? Super crazy occupy nonsense...moving on. After the event these folks will be on to complaining about their next set of comrades...that pitch in to help.... ;) 💩

The rationale for the 3-group (or 3-person, if a single large Occupy) was very simple—do your work before you get to GA. If a team has already formed in support, it is an indication of a wider range of interest. Certainly, it should not be necessary in a proposal in direct response to something arising out of a discussion, as everyone is already informed. However, if one takes the time to come to a regional or national event, or has a group that is large enough that all do not know each other well, then some advance work saves the larger group time. That is all that was intended. It actually makes it easier for those who are uncomfortable in speaking up at a GA, as they can enlist copresenters who will help them craft the proposal and speak it; those who just want to hear themselves speak will be slowed down a bit by needing to get some folks to agree with them first.

This was designed for a multitude of purposes—including making decisions on the calls, including to be a model for any Occupy group that CHOOSES to use it or their own modification. I am neither married nor opposed to it being discussed at the gathering; although, as I think of it, I would like to see an open-space workshop to discuss it after the many hours of work it involved. I am distressed that it did not get more discussion on any platform; hate to think it was all wasted time.

I'm a bit confused. Which proposal are we talking about now? This discussion is about a policy of nonviolence.

The proposal is in the right column.

In the interest of the group, please keep any further comments in this thread focused on that proposal?

Thank you.

Please see thread:
Meetings, Calls, Unfinished Business - Please Weigh In!!!

to arrange another call to decide on this proposal. Les of Sac first brought this to the group's attention. 7 people here clearly approve. Let's have a statement of non-violence to offer from the NGWG.

Second, violence is defined as a physical assault on a [any?] person or property, and then defined only with respect to property when it is being used for NatGat purposes. So is bombing a bank prohibited?

@les The proposal states clearly that it is not making a statement about violence generally but speaking specifically towards how it is defined in the context of the gathering. It seems clear to myself and seven others.

Not sure how you see definitions in conflict since you didn't explain yourself at all. To your second point, I'd restate that it is a statement specifically for the gathering itself and its participants.

@jackrabbit, OK, I think I get it now. The proposal is limited to "NatGat activities and within official Nat Gat event spaces". So it doesn't propose to sanction physical violence by NatGat participants when they are outside of "official Nat Gat event spaces". Am I getting closer?

It wouldn't make sense to try. And what would be the point. The subject of violence has been very divisive in the past. It would be useless to open up a debate about it. The statement was just to deal with people's behavior in spaces that are for the Nat Gat and for people representing the Nat Gat in that context. Nothing else.

What part of "peaceful assembly" is hard to understand?